texinwien wrote: So yeah, dunno Jack. I'm with you in a lot of ways here, and I understand where you're coming from, but you're making one or two small errors in logic that are throwing off the entire rest of your argument.

Only for people that take snippets of my posts out of their context. I've known this stuff as summarized in these two posts for years and certainly did not change my mind in the last couple of days for these two threads.

Jack

PS This phantomatic 'proof' you keep referring to was just a fictitious example connected to issue 1 (inconsistent in-camera ISOs between cameras and manufacturers), labelled as such for correctness and nothing to do with exposure, of what may happen when in-camera ISO labels are arbitrarily assigned by a a manufacturer - foolish people take them at face value at their own peril when deciding where to lay their money.

I still want an example of point 1

"1) Inconsistent in-camera ISO labelling by manufacturers."

Eg: If most cameras require ISO200, 1/200, f5, to generate a nice jpeg, find me a camera that requires ISO400, 1/200, f5 for the same scene.

The OM-D is not an example of this, as you have claimed here;

Sir, I have claimed no such thing and metering has never been part of this discussion. As for examples of inconsistend in-camera ISO labelling you can peruse this site or any other good sources on the net for examples.

Quote from Jack Hogan:

"Camera manufacturers can define ISO (S) as they please thanks to a lax standard. Because of this fact it is not possible to measure the performance of camera A at a set in-camera ISO (let's call itSubjective S) and expect to meaningfully compare its results to those from Camera B at the same ISO setting."

Sure looks like you claiming that there is "Inconsistent in-camera ISO labelling by manufacturers."